 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lone Ranger
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Location: Macedon Ranges
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Shows they care more about the end result rather than the intent.
Cotchin unaffected so Maxy gets off.
Selwood goes down and stays down so Adams gets suspended. |
|
|
|
 |
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lone Ranger wrote: | Shows they care more about the end result rather than the intent.
Cotchin unaffected so Maxy gets off.
Selwood goes down and stays down so Adams gets suspended. |
Happens in all codes much to my annoyance... 
Recently in the NRL a guy didn’t even get suspended for a tackle like the one the Melbourne Storm player got 8 weeks for, because in this instance, the opposition player luckily didn’t get injured unlike with the Storm player’s tackle. Totally bloody inconsistent.
The injury consequence of an act of the field shouldn’t have any bearing on the punishment for the said act. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lone Ranger wrote: | Shows they care more about the end result rather than the intent.
Cotchin unaffected so Maxy gets off.
Selwood goes down and stays down so Adams gets suspended. |
I actually think this is a case of the MRP modifying their position on the fly. the court of popular opinion clearly identified that MRP has been getting it a little wrong the last few weeks and I think this might signal a subtle shift going forward.
Look, I really think players have to be careful in their bumps, but they SHOULD NOT get rubbed out every time there is contact to the head. They need to look at two important things - 1) did the player getting hit do something that might have turned an ordinary bump into high contact (as in the Adams case), or 2) was the bump sufficiently connected to the paly on the ball that it makes sense that contact is made (the Maxwell case). In both of those, so long as a player isn't clearly trying to hurt his opponent, he should get the benefit of the doubt.
Let's see how it gets interpreted going forward, but I think we all believe that none of Fyfe, Adams or Maxy should have been rubbed out!
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That flog Robbo said that Maxy was 100% gone as well. Stick that in your scotch and dry Floggo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
